Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - spank86

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11  Next >
41
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Heaven
« on: January 24, 2014, 06:05:18 PM »
That's what I get for not using smileys I suppose.

Are you suggesting all black people have large white teeth?

Some of them have no teeth.

reported.

reported for pointing out that some people have no teeth?

Or for derailing?

42
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Heaven
« on: January 24, 2014, 04:44:15 PM »
That's what I get for not using smileys I suppose.

Are you suggesting all black people have large white teeth?

Some of them have no teeth.

43
Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
« on: January 24, 2014, 04:31:57 PM »
I'm not quite convinced all these actors wanted to do this. I think its bread and butter stuff, despite video games making much more money than movies. I saw Clease looking at his watch.

That's the feeling I got as well, which sucks because I love John Cleese. :[ But yeah, it looked like he was just doing it to get paid, the watch glance kind of gave that away. Plus he just all-around didn't seem very enthusiastic, and his line-readings were kinda boring and uninspired.

That's just John Cleese all round those these days, If it wasn't for his divorce he'd still be retired.

44
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Heaven
« on: January 24, 2014, 04:27:59 PM »
I'll call a spade a spade. .

Now you know it upsets EJ when you make racial slurs.

To "call a spade a spade" is not racist. Spade refers to the shovel, not the colour of someone's skin. It means to speak plainly yet truthfully.

That's what I get for not using smileys I suppose.

45
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Heaven
« on: January 24, 2014, 04:13:28 PM »
I'll call a spade a spade. .

Now you know it upsets EJ when you make racial slurs.

46
I want to set up my own currency called 'Magic Beans'. You will be able to harvest beans by completing algorithms.  :-B

I'm going to go down to McDonalds with a stack of completed Times crosswords (OK, they'll be half finished Sun ones) and attempt to use them to buy burgers.

47
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Heaven
« on: January 23, 2014, 08:53:40 AM »
One who leaves Judaism is re: as an a apostate, which is not a good thing. One who becomes a Jew is re: as having been born w/ a Jewish soul. Mind you, these are human judgements. As to what the Deity thinks, we can't be certain. As to tatoos, I suspect, although I'm not sure, that the issue came up because of the Holocaust. I'd have to look into it further.

something tells me there's a difference between choosing to get an tattoo and having someone forcibly tattoo you, otherwise you'd got to hell for getting a scar from a dog bite.

It does beg the question of why a little butterfly tattoo is evil but it's ok to lop a bit off your knob.

48
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Heaven
« on: January 22, 2014, 05:03:35 PM »
Just think, what will you do in a trillion years when you've seen and done everything in creation?

add body chocolate, and do it again.

49
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ferdinand Magellan
« on: January 22, 2014, 11:10:38 AM »
Although it is clear that Columbus could sail easily across the Atlantic irrespective of the shape of the Earth (whether it were round like a ball, like a disc, or for that matter, even square), Magellan was able to circumnavigate the globe. The question is this. Although one can indeed leave Spain and return to it on a flat disc-shaped Earth, on a mono-polar map, the further South one goes the more messed up one's time frame becomes, and Magellan went pretty far South (all the way to the tip of South America, in fact; the Straits of Magellan are obviously named for him). A bi-polar map also presents problems in terms of time frame and distance. How can this be explained? I have to wrap this up, as I'm on a VERY unstable wi-fi connection (pulling off a neighbour). I'll get back on my phone. But any ideas?

given the time period and ship technology I'd suggest that winds and tides could easily have obscured many discrepancies in terms of distance.

Plus 3 years is plenty of time to travel round the extra distance.

50
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Hebrew conception of Earth.
« on: January 21, 2014, 08:06:12 AM »
Markjo, in the USA, 86% of people identify as Christian. 46% attend a house of worship @ least once a month. I know Western Europe is much more secular, but still, outright atheism is rare there too. Most people in Western Europe prefer a vague Deism. So why is the FES, whose strength has always been the UK & the US, different?

We're an internet community. Internet communities tend to be more secular than physical ones, in my experience. I don't really know why.

less community pressure to conform.

At least when it comes to religion.

51
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Hebrew conception of Earth.
« on: January 20, 2014, 08:58:46 AM »
Markjo, in the USA, 86% of people identify as Christian. 46% attend a house of worship @ least once a month. I know Western Europe is much more secular, but still, outright atheism is rare there too. Most people in Western Europe prefer a vague Deism. So why is the FES, whose strength has always been the UK & the US, different?

Athiesm is pretty common in the UK.


52
In fact, the oft said statement 'religion is the opiate of the masses' was never actually said in so many words, I don't think.

Of course not, Marx was German.

It's a translation.

53
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 03, 2014, 03:53:18 PM »
Over here it's not easy money.

It's not any money. That's the beauty of the NHS, I don't get mugged for cash once a year so the doctor can tell me I'm still 5ft 7inches tall and 10stone.
Are you suggesting that British doctors don't get paid? They still get money, they just don't get it (directly) from you. It goes from you to the government to the NHS to the doctor.

of course not. they get a very nice salary.

That's not dependent on whether they tell me how tall I am or not, nor does it change dependent on if they send me for blood tests.

54
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 03, 2014, 02:32:06 PM »
Who originally claimed cancer?  Early stages of cancer often have no symptoms.  In fact, it would be preferable to find any cancer before any symptoms become evident.  This is why routine screening (including blood work) is so important.

I don't know who originally, It's a long way back.

And we've already established it's not a routine appointment, that's an entirely different matter and would have no bearing on the situation.
So, why would a doctor not order routine tests for a non-routine appointment?  Don't forget that the medicine is a business.  Unless you come in overly frequently for screening and keep getting a clean bill of health, why would the doctor turn down easy money?

Over here it's not easy money.

It's not any money. That's the beauty of the NHS, I don't get mugged for cash once a year so the doctor can tell me I'm still 5ft 7inches tall and 10stone.

55
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 03, 2014, 07:56:40 AM »
Who originally claimed cancer?  Early stages of cancer often have no symptoms.  In fact, it would be preferable to find any cancer before any symptoms become evident.  This is why routine screening (including blood work) is so important.

I don't know who originally, It's a long way back.

And we've already established it's not a routine appointment, that's an entirely different matter and would have no bearing on the situation.

56
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 02, 2014, 09:47:11 PM »
and in the absence of any evidence that's exactly what will happen in your example.

Symptoms are evidence.

57
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 02, 2014, 09:03:47 PM »
So please tell me which scenario the doctor automatically assumes you have nothing wrong with you?

The original claim was cancer.

All through that example you have yourself providing evidence to the doctor that something is wrong with you.

No assumption needed, once you've provided evidence that something is wrong the doctor finds out WHAT.
That is exactly my point.  The doctor makes no assumption about you health.  He does not assume you have cancer. He also doesn't assume you DON’T have cancer.  He make no assumptions about your health until more evidence is collected.

But it is your responsibility to provide the evidence.

If you provide not a single symptom as evidence the man's not going to do a lot.


58
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 02, 2014, 08:56:35 PM »
So please tell me which scenario the doctor automatically assumes you have nothing wrong with you?

The original claim was cancer.

All through that example you have yourself providing evidence to the doctor that something is wrong with you.

No assumption needed, once you've provided evidence that something is wrong the doctor finds out WHAT.

59
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 02, 2014, 03:50:00 PM »
Who walks into the doctor's and gets an appointment if it is not either a routine check up or a complaint of something specific?  I think a routine check up is the minimum care you would expect.
I know, but had to give an example based on their claim.

you did.

the original claim that if you go tell a doctor you've got cancer he will simply start treating you or running tests with no evidence presented.

He won't, He'll ask you to show some evidence and if you can't he'll suggest some possible evidence you might have noticed and if you still can't he'll ask you what makes you think you have cancer and if there's STILL no evidence being provided he'll send you on your way because he's not going to run a full set of tests just because you woke up and thought you had some nebulous cancer  of the "I don't know what", with no symptoms

No, the original claim was that the doctor will automatically assume you don't have cancer. 
I have shown that the doctor has no assumptions about your health when you walk in the door.

There are routine things that a happens at a doctors office before the doctor even sees you.  They weigh you, the get your height, they get your blood pressure.  All of these things are diagnostics to help determine if there is a significant variation to what is normal.

no.

These are things you pay for if you want a routine check up. My doctor doesn't weight me or check my height every time I go to see him. None of my doctors ever have except when I change surgery. It would be pointless, I know how tall I am and how much I weigh anyway, don't need to waste money having a doctor keep that info too. I'm not overly worried I'm in a Roald Dahl book and might get the dreaded shrinks.

He simply asks me what I'm there for and we proceed based off the evidence I provide.

If I have no evidence of a problem the doctor isn't going to go looking for it unless I press for it and provide some evidence.

Of course I suppose the doctor might weigh me if I was morbidly obese But then I guess I've already presented evidence by walking in the door.

60
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 01, 2014, 04:27:31 PM »
Who walks into the doctor's and gets an appointment if it is not either a routine check up or a complaint of something specific?  I think a routine check up is the minimum care you would expect.
I know, but had to give an example based on their claim.

you did.

the original claim that if you go tell a doctor you've got cancer he will simply start treating you or running tests with no evidence presented.

He won't, He'll ask you to show some evidence and if you can't he'll suggest some possible evidence you might have noticed and if you still can't he'll ask you what makes you think you have cancer and if there's STILL no evidence being provided he'll send you on your way because he's not going to run a full set of tests just because you woke up and thought you had some nebulous cancer  of the "I don't know what", with no symptoms
Incorrect.  Since early stages of cancer often exhibit no obvious symptoms, the doctor will most likely order some routine tests just to be safe.
Which tests would these be?

For cancer of the what?

Bear in mind you're not telling him any symptoms or that anythings wrong, you're fine, you just think you've got cancer for no reason at all.

You had your routine checkup 6 months ago, he's not going to randomly run a load of tests for stuff unless it's purely an exercise in charging your health provider.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11  Next >